If your argument against having sex is that people have better things to be doing, shouldn't you be equally against monogamous sex within marriage? Sex doesn't take less time just because you're married (at least, for the sake of married people, I hope not :p)
Yeah, it got cut for length / relevance, but I had an argument for dating to optimize for future children's capabilities & values in here. Maybe also too far to push c:, especially if I'm only asking for 10%.
The issue with this is that there is little overlap between effective altruists, who tend to be secular and libertarian, and people that are socially conservative, like evangelical Christians.
They share an an appreciation for calculated intemperance, with the latter emphasizing the temperance, the former the calculation. IOW they're conscientious and probably equally prone to vice overall, with the evangelicals being very either/or - teetotalers and those who very much struggle - and the EAs more measured, generally functional, but still engaging in vice.
Much of this seems like a new age way for smart people to leverage the value of religion without calling themselves religious. EA’s doing a lot of mental gymnastics to live a virtuous life.
Do you disagree with the point that you have better things to be doing? Do you think that religion does not encourage these things effectively? What is the argument here?
To address the underlying sentiment a bit more directly, hedonism is itself the most inherently inhuman ideology. It reduces you to an animal far more than rationalism ever could. Do you feel more insulted if you're compared to a pig or if you're compared to a chess engine? For the vast majority of people, it's obviously the pig. Humans have lived in a more socially conservative way for the vast majority of history / evolutionary history; it's simply absurd to equate this temporary dysgenic cul-de-sac with what is "human".
You can argue for hedonism and indulge in it yourself; but don't ever try to pretend it is in any way more human than the alternative. It is a rejection of what it means to be human, through and through.
> The argument is that "optimizing" life for productivity is inherently non-human.
You are clearly expressing a moral point of view. Don't shy away from that. Take it to it's logical conclusion. Don't for a second delude yourself into thinking you're doing science.
One of you is crippled by your experience with Big Atheism and appear to be unaware of when they installed that program in your subconscious. You can feel the emotional programmed response in the writing!
I have not one but two paragraphs for these emotional reactions, which you very clearly didn't read
> The one premise of this argument is that we have better things to be doing than sex and drugs. Maybe you don’t believe this. In that case, this article isn’t for you, and I honestly don’t think I could say anything that would convince you. But if you think that scientific research, entrepreneurship, philanthropy, or really anything at all is a higher, more important, or more moral thing to be doing, then this argument is for you. In practice, it’s targeted towards the Effective Altruist types in my audience, though I’m sure the conservatives in my audience will appreciate the article for encouraging them to do things they’re already doing (like and share, guys).
> I mention that this is the naive model because there are several objections to the nature of the tradeoff. One might argue that it takes as much effort to control your desires than it does to indulge them. This is true in some extreme cases, like the Islamic Republic of Iran. I titled the article “10% More Social Conservatism” for a reason. I’m not arguing for Iran and in almost all cases don’t think military enforcement is practical or cost-effective. Instead I’m arguing for a shift in informal social norms, which will won’t fully prevent anyone from doing the things I oppose, but hopefully encourage some fraction of people not to.
If people do things to enjoy life they are doing a terrible job of it. For instance having children is not enjoyable. People don’t really want to be happy. They would much rather fight and win.
A massive amount of money goes to attend to people with drug or alcohol problems. I wouldn’t be surprised if 400 people in my city are paid full time to chase 800 homeless people around. The fact that we still aim to control addictions is a clue to me that social control is about more than making everybody productive.
Social control is there to redirect us when we get into crisis. I want to be the guy who is witty or courageous so I drink. Maybe somebody wants to feel creative like me so they drop acid. Do I have to respond and make my art trippier to compete with them? Now we’re in crisis and the power dynamic takes over.
I suppose the impulse to leave my wife for somebody who sees me the way I see me, who will chase this addictive illusion of myself as hard as I do, is another version of this crisis. To compete my wife has to get into the crisis with my lover.
Somebody loves Kim Kardashian and wants to become her. What if she looks and acts exactly the same? I want somebody in authority who “looks like me”. What if they look exactly like me? It seems to me these are the crises any social control tries to head off or redirect.
If your argument against having sex is that people have better things to be doing, shouldn't you be equally against monogamous sex within marriage? Sex doesn't take less time just because you're married (at least, for the sake of married people, I hope not :p)
Yeah, it got cut for length / relevance, but I had an argument for dating to optimize for future children's capabilities & values in here. Maybe also too far to push c:, especially if I'm only asking for 10%.
The issue with this is that there is little overlap between effective altruists, who tend to be secular and libertarian, and people that are socially conservative, like evangelical Christians.
They share an an appreciation for calculated intemperance, with the latter emphasizing the temperance, the former the calculation. IOW they're conscientious and probably equally prone to vice overall, with the evangelicals being very either/or - teetotalers and those who very much struggle - and the EAs more measured, generally functional, but still engaging in vice.
Much of this seems like a new age way for smart people to leverage the value of religion without calling themselves religious. EA’s doing a lot of mental gymnastics to live a virtuous life.
Can’t I do sex, drink Chablis, and still have time for EA? I’m a glass half full kind of guy.
s/Bostrum/Bostrom
Do you disagree with the point that you have better things to be doing? Do you think that religion does not encourage these things effectively? What is the argument here?
To address the underlying sentiment a bit more directly, hedonism is itself the most inherently inhuman ideology. It reduces you to an animal far more than rationalism ever could. Do you feel more insulted if you're compared to a pig or if you're compared to a chess engine? For the vast majority of people, it's obviously the pig. Humans have lived in a more socially conservative way for the vast majority of history / evolutionary history; it's simply absurd to equate this temporary dysgenic cul-de-sac with what is "human".
You can argue for hedonism and indulge in it yourself; but don't ever try to pretend it is in any way more human than the alternative. It is a rejection of what it means to be human, through and through.
> The argument is that "optimizing" life for productivity is inherently non-human.
You are clearly expressing a moral point of view. Don't shy away from that. Take it to it's logical conclusion. Don't for a second delude yourself into thinking you're doing science.
One of you is crippled by your experience with Big Atheism and appear to be unaware of when they installed that program in your subconscious. You can feel the emotional programmed response in the writing!
I have not one but two paragraphs for these emotional reactions, which you very clearly didn't read
> The one premise of this argument is that we have better things to be doing than sex and drugs. Maybe you don’t believe this. In that case, this article isn’t for you, and I honestly don’t think I could say anything that would convince you. But if you think that scientific research, entrepreneurship, philanthropy, or really anything at all is a higher, more important, or more moral thing to be doing, then this argument is for you. In practice, it’s targeted towards the Effective Altruist types in my audience, though I’m sure the conservatives in my audience will appreciate the article for encouraging them to do things they’re already doing (like and share, guys).
> I mention that this is the naive model because there are several objections to the nature of the tradeoff. One might argue that it takes as much effort to control your desires than it does to indulge them. This is true in some extreme cases, like the Islamic Republic of Iran. I titled the article “10% More Social Conservatism” for a reason. I’m not arguing for Iran and in almost all cases don’t think military enforcement is practical or cost-effective. Instead I’m arguing for a shift in informal social norms, which will won’t fully prevent anyone from doing the things I oppose, but hopefully encourage some fraction of people not to.
If people do things to enjoy life they are doing a terrible job of it. For instance having children is not enjoyable. People don’t really want to be happy. They would much rather fight and win.
A massive amount of money goes to attend to people with drug or alcohol problems. I wouldn’t be surprised if 400 people in my city are paid full time to chase 800 homeless people around. The fact that we still aim to control addictions is a clue to me that social control is about more than making everybody productive.
Social control is there to redirect us when we get into crisis. I want to be the guy who is witty or courageous so I drink. Maybe somebody wants to feel creative like me so they drop acid. Do I have to respond and make my art trippier to compete with them? Now we’re in crisis and the power dynamic takes over.
I suppose the impulse to leave my wife for somebody who sees me the way I see me, who will chase this addictive illusion of myself as hard as I do, is another version of this crisis. To compete my wife has to get into the crisis with my lover.
Somebody loves Kim Kardashian and wants to become her. What if she looks and acts exactly the same? I want somebody in authority who “looks like me”. What if they look exactly like me? It seems to me these are the crises any social control tries to head off or redirect.
Oh I’m sorry I messed up. This comment had nothing to do with what you said. Sorry about that